Paul Stauffer wrote:
> >Kanchana Kanchaunaset pointed out that fees only stop the poor from cheating.
> I found that a convincing >argument. If the goal is to prevent fraud, we will
> need to find other mechanisms than one that unfairly >impacts on developing
> nations.
> Right, which is why I also asked about the postal verification. That seems to
> be an essential step, but it is not without its costs. Seems like even a
> minimal fee would at least help offset that administrative cost a bit.
> It's all circular, of course. :) If the postal verification process will not
> impose an undue financial burden on ICANN, I have no problem with dropping the
> fee completely.
>
> >We have some language to this effect in the new bylaw proposal which is in
> >process now.
>
> Excellent.
>
> >An ICANN Director wanted to revisit the registration consensus to try and
> >automate procedures as much as possible in order to save both time and money.
> >The MAC very strongly insisted that postal verification be obtained at a
> >minimum. The "only attempt to verify...if a complaint is lodged" refers, I
> >think, to how far ICANN will go beyond postal verification and that's not a
> shift
> >in the consensus.
>
> Ok, sounds good. Thanks for clarifying that for me; the notes from March 18
> left me with a different impression. (BTW, should we post these messages to the
> list, so others can see your answers to my questions? I just did a personal
> reply since you mailed me directly.)
Wrong config on my Reply.
> >One legal query is whether or not we can post the membership list so that if
> >someone sees 65 members applying from 21 School Street in Boston, they can
> bring
> >it to ICANN's attention at which point a more thorough verification can be
> made.
>
> Hm, makes us privacy advocates a bit nervous. :) We need a clever AI to scan
> the membership roles and watch for "suspicious" entries.
Cal. law particularly specifies that all members of a corporation must have
reasonable access the the list of the members.
> >Any additional identification materials are just as easily forged as an
> address,
> >and requiring "certified" ID's is too expensive at this point and also not
> >affordable in many countries. For example, notary publics in some European
> >countries charge hundreds of dollars to notarize a document.
>
> Right, I agree. Postal addresses are a good balance between cost and
> verification strength, and are universally available.
About all we can afford at present. Not anywhere near perfect.
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. As usual, you have
> reaffirmed to me the thoroughness and quality of the MAC's work. :)
Questions from people like you, who have taken the time to study the reports, are
usually very astute. Hats off to you for doing your homework.
Diane Cabell
MAC
